Yes, the sequester really does threaten vital research

As bad enough as it is for those in biomedical research to procure funding, clueless trouble-makers like this guy make it worse.

Here is a quote from this guys article

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Hunt that if Alzheimer’s deaths have increased, it is largely because deaths from cancer and circulatory ailments have decreased. As this column has noted repeatedly, the aggregate death rate from all causes is 100%; if the deaths from one cause diminish, by mathematical necessity deaths from all other causes will eventually rise by a like number.

Fortunately, some good retorts were posted in the comments section of the very article, including the somewhat tongue-in-cheek exclamation that the writer himself seemed to be suffering from Alzheimer’s.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

Well, first you’d have to show something to support that Alzheimer’s research is actually “vital” as compared to other forms of research. I’m not saying that it isn’t but you’ve presented it as such solely in the form of an unsubstantiated postulate. This leads me to wonder if said “vital” research is more vital to your career than anything else.

Secondly, you’re talking about a 5% reduction in what was a slightly over half a billion dollar annual budget. Please!

“first you’d have to show something to support that Alzheimer’s research is actually “vital” as compared to other forms of research.”
Alzheimer’s was used as an example since the WSJ specifically attacked it. It is in no way implying that other areas of research are not important. If you consider that Alzheimer’s is a disease generally associated with older populations (http://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/publication/alzheimers-disease-fact-sheet), and that about 20% of the population will be 65 and above by 2060 (when people like myself and you presumably will fall in that bracket) it becomes clear that we need effective therapy for the disease.

“This leads me to wonder if said “vital” research is more vital to your career than anything else.”
I actually don’t work on Alzheimer’s or anything remotely close to it.

“Secondly, you’re talking about a 5% reduction in what was a slightly over half a billion dollar annual budget. Please!”

I am not sure what you are talking about here, but if you are referring to the sequester reducing the NIH budget by 5%, then there is more to this number than meets the eye. That 5%, which amounts to $1.55 billion out of $30 billion, not $500 million, is directly going to affect the number of research grants being awarded (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35516/title/NIH-s-2013-Budget-Cuts-Announced/). Grants are the only source of income for the over 300000 researchers at 2500 universities and institutions nationwide (http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2013/nih-03.htm). That means 700 fewer grants and thousands of lost jobs. 5% doesn’t sound little when these statistics are put into perspective. If anything, the more important question is – why even the 5% cut? This is $1.5 billion of a >$1 trillion deficit. That isn’t even a blip on a radar.

OK, to start with please accept my apologies. I read the post and looked at your “Career and Education” and came to the conclusion that there was a direct career / rent / publishing bent to this. Sorry if there isn’t.

But – ignoring a primarily gerontological disease – we’re talking 5% cuts and the argument that the debt is so large that we shouldn’t care isn’t much of an argument. Frankly, it’s less of an argument than the cuts in question.

Finally, the $500 million was, according to the link you provided, the Alzheimer’s
-specific budget segment.